The Conservative leadership election

I will be voting for Boris when my ballot paper arrives. He has given a clearer pledge to get us out of the EU by 31 October than Jeremy Hunt. This is vital for the future of our democracy and for the recovery of the Conservative party.

He has pledged tax cuts for individuals earners and home buyers and more spending on local schools and the police. In contrast Jeremy has promised a further expensive large cut in Corporation tax for large companies, where we are more competitive . It is our tax rates for individuals and taxes on enterprise and property ownership that are holding us back and harming the revenues.

If I needed any more reasons to choose Boris rather than Jeremy, the issue of fox hunting would supply it. Jeremy Hunt announced he would want a further Commons vote on fox hunting and implied he supported fox hunting. I have no wish to see this divisive issue re opened in Parliament. It is very unlikely Parliament would vote a different way to last time, but it would stir up strong emotions on both sides. Mr Hunt then appeared to back down rapidly under fire, saying he did not intend to introduce such a motion were he to become Prime Minister and was merely reasserting the position from Mrs May’s failed Manifesto of 2017. This made his position worse.

I look forward to our early exit from the EU without signing the completely unacceptable Withdrawal Treaty. I want a Brexit bonus budget to spend the money we save. We should stop all contributions to the EU from 1 November onwards.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

233 Comments

I too would vote for Boris over Mr Hunt for the main reason that Mr Johnson is a Brexiteer and not a remainer in Mrs Mays cloths like Mr Hunt is, yes Mr Hunt might be coming over as a nice sincere guy but I don’t trust him or the people around him to deliver us Brexit on October 31st 2019, so vote Boris

Mick, I looked up what Jeremy Hunt has said about Brexit over the last couple of years, and he is all over the place. Boris Johnson has been consistent at least since I saw him at a VoteLeave rally in early 2016.

The notion that the UK cannot prosper unless we are run by the EU is one of the most ludicrous propositions made by Remain. And MPs must accept that the country voted to leave the EU treaties, under the conditions set by MPs themselves.

Theresa May’s legacy is encapsulated in the EU’s view that “We finally turned [the UK] into a colony and that was our plan from the first moment.” Neither the country nor the Conservative party can afford a male version of Mrs May.

I do so hope that Boris is able to secure the role of PM with your vote and hopefully enough others to give him a landslide. He then must ensure he delivers a clean Brexit by Halloween at the latest.

Perhaps, as soon as he is in situ, it would be a good time to remind Varadkar and his EU friends just how accommodating Britain was in 1922 when southern Ireland became independent and in 1937 when it became a sovereign, independent, democratic state. No trade or other restrictions imposed upon them. No fee to continue to trade with the UK. Unchanged treatment of their nationals within the UK. No supremacy of British law.

P.S. I have been finding it rather difficult to keep up to date with the English Democrats’ Brexit court case.
For anyone having similar difficulty, may I suggest a visit to:
stynesrobert.simplesite.com/442061665
This site seems to give all the news – and some in-depth and revealing background to it. In simple terms, on 28th June, a single Justice of the High Court (with proven ‘Remainer’ views) handed down a ‘No Case to Answer’ ruling, which is now being appealed. If we get out cleanly on the due date, perhaps it is not so relevant.

But Alexander has also stated that he intends to renegotiate the WA and try to either remove or, time limit the so called backstop. May I remind him should never as here, the WHOLE of the WA is an affront to the referendum and to all that those who took part voted for. The WA is a treaty purely designed to convert UK membership of the EU to that of a colony ! Never in my life have I been so disgusted with those on the continent and the EU.

After all we and others have done to liberate them from evil they show us no respect.

Billy Elliot, I hope you are right. As the EU said, the dWA makes the UK a “colony” of the EU. So the dWA must be scrapped in its entirety. We don’t need one. All we need are the same type of low-key agreements we make with most other nations already on issues as diverse as double taxation and driving licences, but which don’t turn us into colonies of those other states.

NickC at least we agree on some things. Happy days.
I am just wondering why the idea comes up all the time?
Well yes there is of course the possibility that EU would change their stance on this. Bit far fetched IMO.

Billy Elliot, I am not sure that we do agree at all. I think the EU will re-negotiate the dWA. I just hope they don’t. Not the same thing. The WTO Leave is simply the safest and best way of permanently disentangling ourselves from the clutches of the EU empire.

NickC..what you’re talking abut is having your cake..well after 1st Nov we will have no agreements with them and everything will have to start from scratch UK vs 27 is not going to happen in a week or a month or a year..so better brace ourselves..no driving licenses to drive on the continent will be the start

ChasE, It is possible that the EU could be as spiteful as you suppose. But a double taxation agreement for example makes all the nations lives simpler and so will be done. There are after all about 3 times as many EU citizens in the UK, as UK people in the EU.

But, for the European Union, geography is key. Any distant country may well be able to enter into an FTA, but those contiguous, or virtually so other than a bit of water, are regarded as prey for the EU amoeba to subsume so that it may thrive and grow. Gratitude for past favours / sacrifices is not their consideration.

Boris must totally bin everything which bears the taint of May and her coterie of traitors.

The UK a colony? Never.
Re: Widdecombe declared: “It is right because there is a pattern consistent throughout history of oppressed people turning on their oppressors.
“Slaves against their owners, the peasantry against their feudal masters.
Colonies against their empires, and that is why Britain is leaving, and it doesn’t matter what language you use, we are going and we are glad to be going.”

We have been a colony for 46 years. Our ‘Monarch’ is a Suzerain, our ‘Parliament’ allowed itself to take orders,our courts imposed foreign mad laws and we are still citizens of a foreign power.
The RAF was in the air with the Luftwaffe bombing our anti-Fascist wartime allies, the Serbs.
These have been the darkest days in our history. God speed November 2019!

Wasn’t that a NATO operation(and therefore the foreign power was the USA),couched in humanitarian excuses but actually conducted for geopolitical reasons-as an example to Russia that she too would be broken up if she didn’t submit to globalism.

(And the Chinese have not forgotten the “accidental” bombing of their embassy in Belgrade.)

And what a great orator Anne Widdecombe is! Commeth the hour, commeth the woman! Top marks to her for standing up to the EU and telling them what is wrong with their festering cesspit!

She’s a national treasure if ever there was one, and she would absolutely thrash the hapless, obtuse, untrustworthy and completely unsuitable turncoat Theresa May. What a pity Anne Widdecombe had no leadership aspirations back in 2016.

I wonder how many decent folk of her calibre the Tory party has to lose before it eventually collapses in on itself, or can it really get rid of all the dead and decaying extraneous beings, to be re-invented and re-invigorated?

I don’t trust Theresa May in trousers to deliver anything other than what has gone before, a succession of sick and paltry administrations that con people into thinking they are batting for Britain, whilst underhandedly working away behind the scenes to thwart the will of the people and sell us out.

Their time must surely soon be over. This is a national emergency as great as any we have ever faced in our long history, so the onus is upon Tory party members to deliver us from this evil and vote for anybody but Hunt!

Very True.
Uk will never be a colony.
Unfortunately in future there might be United Republic of Ireland,
Independent Scotland and England-Wales.
On the the other hand I am satisfied that I am not alone with this risk scenario JRM and other prominent politicians are making statments about this possibility.

Perhaps I am at fault, but I find it hard to take seriously any comments where the author uses an alternative name for a politician, for example, saying Gideon instead of George Osborne or, as you have done here, using Alexander instead of Boris. What is the point of doing so? Would you write a film review about Maurice instead of Michael Caine ?

As you know, in a free society, we are permitted to express the truth without restriction – stop laughing at the back ! As such, I choose to use his real name and not his ‘stage name’. This is because, unlike some, I am not as easily taken in by the character he so ably performs for the masses. I have been referring to him by his real name since 2011 FYI and will not change.

Refuse to take me seriously if you wish. But don’t blind yourself to the ‘man behind the mask

I would say that rather than refuse to take seriously it’s more a question of I think the author is trying to be too clever which, rightly or not, makes me think they have nothing worth listening to. However, your explanation makes it clear that isn’t your intention. Thank you for responding in a courteous manner.

You probably won’t like my ‘Theresa May in trousers’ comment then Pud.

Believe me when I say I could use a lot of alternative words and phrases to describe those who smile in our faces, but plot to sell us out. I guarantee everyone would know who I meant, but alas, this is a moderated site.

Not at all, Tad. I think that’s a great description. I was solely objecting to the way some people use a politician’s given name instead of the name they are known as. To me, it gives the impression they are saying, for example, “aren’t I clever, I know George Osborne’s first name is really Gideon”. As I said in my first post, I may be wrong to think like that.
Nicknames like “May in trousers” or Bliar instead of Blair can be very effective and I don’t object to them at all.

Point taken. It’s a bit like someone using my ‘official’ name simply because they knew it, rather than the nickname I have been known by since I was six months old. In my case, my birth name is so poncey, I refuse to use it except when I have no choice as in an official requirement.

Boris’ case is slightly different because it is an official birth name, but nevertheless it conveys an inimitable character and has so much more resonance with the public than that of his opponent.

‘Never in my life have I been so disgusted with those on the continent and the EU.’

Correct, but let’s not forget the role of the UK parliament in all of this. They’re the ones who facilitated this treacherous travesty in the first place, and continued to pursue it by stealth and sleight-of-hand for over 46 years!

MPs were either too stupid to see what was going on about them, or fifth columnists hell-bent in this nation’s servitude to an undemocratic monolith.

Not in my name!

Either way, these leavers were unfit for office and did not deserve the nation’s trust. I can’t wait for the day when they can all be held to account and kicked out of office altogether!

I am in two minds. What do you say to the arguments 1) that Mr hunt is more respected in foreign capitals esp. The EU, so has a higher chance of getting a deal; and 2) that Boris is unpopular in Scotland so his election will fuel separatism and set back the Conservative revival there?

Mr Hunt seems to poll better as PM with the public – who do you think gives us the best chance of beating Corbyn?

Boris (by miles) has the better chance of beating Corbyn. Most people do not even know who Hunt is. He was dire at the NHS for 5+ year other than endlessly saying sorry for it he did nothing to make the system work. He is just “Theresa the nightmare continues” candidate.

25% of people with sepsis not picked up and given antibiotics within the target of one hour it seems at the NHS. How many of them die due to this negligence? Mind you one is lucky to be looked are by anyone medical within about 3 hours in my experience. And that will probably be a newly qualified doctor fresh out of University.

Richard1 said: “Mr Hunt is more respected in foreign capitals esp. the EU …”. How do you know he is more “respected”? And respected for what? Is it because the EU has said so? In which case you have your answer – they want the easiest opponent.

”… a higher chance of getting a deal…”
Well – Mrs May could easily have ”got us a deal”. But what a deal! I’m sure Mr Hunt could indeed do just as ”well” if he wanted – and I’m sure, from all he’s said, that he WILL want a deal just like Mrs May’s.

Anyway – it’s not all about the Conservative party, is it? Isn’t there something about our country regaining its freedom from the EU?

I’d rather our leader were healthily feared than ”respected” – feared because of a vowed intention of taking us out of their undemocratic ‘organisation’.

The Russians have jumped straight on a comment by J Hunt this week about the UK’s “strategic ambiguity”:-

“I love British Foreign Policy.It is beauty and the beast rolled into one.Now we understand the essence of London’s strategy in the Skripal case.It is strategic ambiguity.Thank you for your honesty,Jeremy.”

Hunt is the best chance of beating Corbyn because Farage would get a bigger vote with Hunt running the Conservatives than Boris. Boris might split the Brexit vote a bit – I imagine he would come to some agreement with Farage though after Hammond and co have forced an election.

Leaving the EU to regain our freedom and democracy is far, far more important than who wins the next GE.

And it wouldn’t matter who won the next GE if Parliament signed the WA where we accept all EU laws, taxes, fines, budgets and policies (trade, environment, energy, immigration etc.) with no representation or veto and from which we could not leave without the consent of the EU.

How could you possibly vote for Mr. Hunt who is a hard remainer who voted 3 times for this traitorous treaty ?

Hunt was totall idiotic to reopen the issue of fox hunting. Just as Theresa May was on this issue and indeed almost every other issue. Personally I would not have banned fox hunting though I have never participated. But there is nothing to gain from reopening the issue politically.

Of these two Boris is far, far preferable. He actually believes in a real Brexit, far lower taxes, far less red tape and less nanny state. He does some to have swallowed some of the green crap though he should follow Trump who is right on this issue. Of course to cut taxes you have to cut government but there is masses of waste that could be cut without any deterioration in service. About 50% of it I estimate.

Let us hope the many Libdim’s pretending to be Conservative MPs do not frustrate his leadership as I suspect they will. The main reason to vote for Boris is he is the only one who gives the country a slim chance of avoiding Corbyn. Though Corbyn and Mc Donnall are clearly doing their bext to ensure they do not win too. Poll puts Labour support at historic low amid Brexit flip-flopping and anti-Semitism row just one in five would support him at a general election it seems. The people are not as daft as he thinks they are or indeed as ‘Magic Money Tree’ Corbyn is.

He, Raab, and Mogg all did it together. The reason was presumably that the PM was now colluding with Parliament to overthrow Brexit and they reckoned a quarter of a loaf was better than none. I don’t agree.
They seemed to be cheering themselves up with the thought that they could tear it up after leaving. I think it was a genuine split amongst the Brexiteers about what to do at that point and they did come back together afterwards.

Mike Wilson, You ask what is “crap” about “green”? The answer is that every “green” initiative I have ever heard of is either: plain propaganda, not based on science, impractical, counterproductive, illusory, or dangerous. Sometimes a combination of those. That’s because most green activists are neither scientists nor engineers.

Wood chips across the Atlantic. EU ripping up 1.7m acres of rainforest for “bio” fuel. “Zero” “carbon”. Battery and hydrogen powered cars. Battery cars without building power stations. Intermittents. Intermittents without the costs of backups included. Consequent high cost of electricity. Consequent loss of industry. Consequent loss of jobs. Consequent impoverishment. Plastic recycling – that ends up in the seas. CFLs. “Smart” meters. Lost opportunities (& L/O costs) for reliable nuclear and gas powered generation plants. Dead fish dumping in the North Sea. Higher taxes. Delays to shale gas fracking. CAGW believed as a political ideology or even a religion. Arrogance that the “science is settled”. Lack of understanding about clouds/cosmic rays, so just ignored. Crap computer modelling. No usable CCS.

Offshore wind is cheaper than nuclear when all the ones being built are guaranteed 3x the market cost of electricity and inflation proofed and every other nuclear station in the world costs less the the EPR carefully selected by May and Clarke.

The Clean Air Act only got rid of the visible, the invisible from various sources continued and grew. We failed to make use of science and engineering to make coal burning in power generation, and vehicle emmissions acceptable using the criteria of health.

In failing to take this route we denied ourselves a technology export industry. Think what we could be selling to Eastern Europe, India and China had we take that route. Unfortunately we are burdoned with a glut of lawyers and a dirth of engineering and science in the HoC.

You can be aware of environmental issues without thinking every environmental drive is well-thought out or sensible. Green crap – to me – is where people say something is ‘green’ to hide the fact its inefficient and sometimes even worse for the environment than what it replaces.

Recycling is sensible: saves resources, importing replacements and provides work. Fining householders for not using the right bins when all those bins are then thrown into the same lorry by the collectors and mixed together (and then allowing the recycling firm that mixed them to charge the council extra for ‘mixed waste’) is ridiculous.

Commercial Solar power is indeed useful to develop in areas where there is enough sunlight and space. Paying householders in regions without enough sunlight (or enough roofspace) to install microgenerators that they can’t pay off and will never pay for themselves? Again, not productive.

Banning gas boilers just means the gas is burned elsewhere for electricity, losing some to inefficiences, loses more on the transmission line, and costs everyone a fortune to replace perfectly working technology – even less of a green idea, if you consider the costs of manufacturing all the new boilers required.

There is nothing crap about being properly green. The problem is that lots of things that governments and green movement push are not really green at all. They are green wash or just plain green crap. Often they due more damage than good (exporting energy intensive energy industries for example, building HS2) and they usually cost a fortune in tax payers subsidies needed. Doubtless much of it voted through by many MPs and Lords who have nice “consultancy” fees from people pushing for these subdies.

There is nothing wrong with improving the environment but the green religion with its hell and fire damnation in 20 years’ time is merely designed to frighten the public into a feudal and poverty stricken lifestyle whilst the elites continue to enjoy all the benefits that our modern technology provides.

Like you, I too have never participated in a fox hunt, although for myself I would support any attempt to have it banned outright (and suspect it’s demise is in any case inevitable). We can agree, though, that it was idiotic to reopen the issue now. I wonder how much damage is caused, for relatively few votes. It seems to be a chronic itch for the Conservative Party – something forever needing to be scratched.

Sir Joe Soap, No. If Remain MPs stop a Leave PM from implementing Leave, then those Remain MPs would be culpable. Theresa May’s dWA (and yes it was hers, even if the likes of Olly Robbins wrote, edited or managed it) was not written by Remain MPs.

Formula57, Indeed. Remains seem incapable of understanding the meaning of “gross” and “net”, even though those terms apply on their pay slips. Are they thick? Or just uneducated? Or maybe even flat-earthers?

Acorn, It is Remains who do not understand the difference between the gross bill and the various net figures for the amount we pay the EU for the privilege of being told what to do. As demonstrated by continuity Remain’s continued whinging about the gross figure of £350m on the side of a bus – which most people did not see anyway.

Emma Barnett, on Newsnight last night, had the most absurd interview with Ann Widdecombe on EU oppression and Slavery. Ann dealt with it perfectly making the inverview look like the total dope she was. It even out did Cathy Newman’s pathetic interview of Jordan Peterson for gross stupidity.

The BBC seems to be very pleased that Newsnight now has an “all women team of presenters”. But could they not have found some women who could think logically and impress? Onces who were not lefty art graduated with all the usual BBC think misguided beliefs & lunacies? Perhaps even one who was numerate, cernte or even right of centre, understood economics, science, climate alarmist, loogic and reason? Just one would be nice.

Or perhaps they put these people on as they actually want us to think women are a bit lacking in the logic and reason department. I can find them some bright ones if they want.

Despite my natural respect for the rule of law etc, I feel very tempted to just cancel my license fee direct debit.

I wonder why Hunt, when grilled on R4 about whether he was cruel ddin’t respond somewhere along the lines of “You’re being paid twice as much to ask questions as I am as Foreign Secretary to deal with substantive issues you can’t even begin to comprehend – why don’t you ask some questions the answers to which would be useful to your audience for your money?”

Just watched the interview based on your “astonishing” recommendation. The comic value of Emma Barnett is nearly worth the TV license in itself. If I hadn’t known it was supposed to be journalism I would have thought she was a new left Alan Partridge. Hilarious.

I saw a bit of that Newsnight interview yesterday. I was channel hopping from the equally dire Question Time. I don’t usually bother with either show. Emma Barnett wants to make a name for herself in the same way as James O’Brien who has now been reduced to radio chat show host.

Eventually I settled on ITV which had a travelogue on India with Trevor McDonald.

Indeed I suppose the three women who now present Newsnight are not quite as daft as the dire James O’Brien. But Emma was really demonstrating how very, very stupid she must be. Unless that is she was asking scripted questions under direct orders from above?

Newsnight starts after I have gone to bed. Does watching it help for insomnia?
Would I be right in thinking that it is now a BBC navel-gazing programme, where they invite on their left-liberal luvvies to support their pro-remain editorial bias?

Sounds about right, but lets see what really happens should Boris become PM. There is so much dishonesty and double standard behaviour in UK politics. Not to overlook a PC inability to come to terms with situations as they are, that make me cynical of politicians promises. You will be judged on what does and does not happen.

We need a Donald Trump. Someone who will put the UK first instead of appeasing everyone at the expense of the British.

Boris is the best of the two, but I am so accustomed to politicians lying to the electorate for 40+ years about the EU, and finding ways to sideline democracy, that I find it difficult to trust anyone. I guess I’ll have to wait and see if the winner follows through on their promises, but I’m not hopeful.

Roll on the next GE, so we can kick out the non-democrats and get a Parliament that truly represents the people.

Hammond, Grieve, Clarke X 2, Sam Gyimah, Gauke and the rest are clearly planning to undermine Boris at every turn and to destroy the Conservative party. I assume the appalling May will joint in given her speech yesterday. Then we have B***** to Brexit Bercow to suffer too.

It seems Bercow’s vote is worth more than 17.2 million of other people’s – such is democracy.

Good reasons all, but too late as I have already voted for Boris. After a careful read of the competing manifestos sent with the voting forms it was clear to me that Boris was the only one who was clearly committed to escaping from the EU while Hunt was planning on bringing back a new and improved May/Barnier deal.

Johnson’s tax cuts plan is targeting those people who probably voted Remain. I understand why he would do that. It is the idea that Leave is of benefit to them and at the same time proving that they made the wrong choice by voting Remain

But I would argue He should be targeting those real, sincere people who voted Leave who I would argue are those on voters lower earnings and less prone to signalling their piety and plastic virtue by voting Remain

What type of message does that emit to the public when BJ’s tax cuts plan is benefiting Remain voters?

I suppose it matters not in the greater scheme of things. If he fails to deliver Leave then he’s a dead man walking anyway

It might be a Conservative/Eton trick, talking and walking are different things. Perhaps I misremember but didn’t Mr Osborne talk about the hard done by saver who has done the right thing, but with the OnE continued to wreck their lives thereafter? Just because Mr Johnson says one thin, whether good or bad, walking and talking are different things (PM May might be a case in point).

On most issues, especially Brexit, Boris would be my candidate, but raising the fox hunting issue should be one of great interest to all.
If for no other reason, and I can literally think of no others – Blair’s labour party should have been thanked for showing us how effectively media indoctrination works.
The concern for foxes reached fever pitch, and was one of the waves that brought blair into power – a caring decent bloke who had only the best interests of the country at heart..! (Huh)
The indoctrination was so powerful that the lies told about fox hunting still reverberate, still raise extraordinary passions – Now that is the power the media have over us all, and it never stopped at fox hunting…!

“Young people are tending not to use cars but use taxis and hire cars instead.” This is often true but actually taxis and hire cars are in fact cars perhaps the BBC has not noticed this!

Taxis are also very inefficient cars – this as they (currently) need a driver with all their costs and Co2 outputs on top, plus they travel empty for much of the time. Often they travel to pick you up, travel to the destination, travel back to next job, then travel to pick you up again, travel to drop you off and back to next job. Often well over four times the distance covered had you just taken your own car there and back again.

So why are the inefficient taxis allowed in special lanes but not private cars?

Also electric car are not zero emmision at all. Emmisions are just largely moved to the power station and can be larger than a conventional car all considered.

Even Sir John Alexander Armitt a past President of the Institution of Civil Engineers and Deputy Chair of the National Infrastructure Commission seems to think election cars are zero emmision on radio 4 this AM.

What planet are these people on? Electric cars just shift emmsions to the power station and the battery/car manufacturing facilities. They can often be worse than conventional cars on balance. Needless to say the BBC interview did not say anything (or even notice?).

Ride/car sharing will grow and have higher utilization, moreover it may go driverless using special lanes where available. It will solve the first/last mile issue, the parking issue, the flexibility issue and the transport disadvantaged issue. Managed fleets (so n not the current providers approach) will also.over some charging downtime.

I used to be in favour of Hunt winning out, so as to leave fewer people believing the Conservative party might actually deliver Brexit. But I hadn’t anticipated Johnson (and his proxies) being utterly incapable of providing reassurances (disingenuous as though inevitably would be) on there being a plan to leave – nevermind all the other nonsense spouted on a host of other matters.

Now, I don’t think it matters much at all who wins. The Conservative party ought to be toast come the GE, given Johnson’s exposure to, and collapse under, mild scrutiny. Leavers will have no one else to blame but themselves if they vote Conservative rather than Brexit Party, and the result is a Labour/LibDem/SNP/Green coalition. Vote Conservative, remain in the EU with a left wing government – whether it’s PM Johnson, Hunt, Corbyn or anyone else. I don’t know why it is that you seem not to understand this Sir John.

There is no necessary connection between incoherence and incomprehension, if I were incoherent. There was an error in my post due to predictive text that I didn’t spot, though I’m not sure you spotted it either.

My point is quite simple really. The Conservative Party need to get out of the way and let the Brexit Party have a go.

Andy, Brexit is the policy of converting the UK from being an EU colony to being as independent as New Zealand. So Brexit is perfectly possible, and it is Leave. If any PM fails to remove the UK from control by the EU then that is Remain. It really isn’t that difficult to understand. Unfortunately, you are evidently either too obtuse or too stupid to ever get there.

What an ignorant and arrogant little person you are, Andy.
You have never understood up to this point what Brexit means. You think it is something that will affect your bank balance or your ability to take Spanish holidays or work in a foreign bar.
Why does a sudden gleam make plain in one great moment what you haven’t seen – up to now?

Andy, it’s not difficult to understand that a majority of the country voted leave in order to regain our freedom and democracy and retain the ability to influence our laws, taxes and policies by being able to elect and remove those who make these decisions.

On the other hand it is difficult to understand your position where you want us to be a colony of the EU and even pay a fee to be fleeced.

Boris will be forced to choose between the WA with a fee changes and colonial status and WTO after an election with the Brexit Party wiping out the LibDem Tories. He will choose party loyalty and hope that by the time of the election in 3 years time, the dimwitted leavers will have forgotten that they have not really left. They will remember and the Conservative Party will be finished.

Stred,
I think Mr Johnson and Mr Farage have real difficulties. Yes Mr Johnson must deliver a real Brexit on 31st October, but if he does that successfully the Govt still has to rapidly move away from London/SE as the transport, political, financial and cultural centre of the UK. Both Mr Johnson and Mr Farage have real difficulties in doing this, they do not understand the reality. Mr Johnson needs to immediately stop the third runway at Heathrow and speed up the delivery of HS2, committing to at least Birmingham but hopefully Birmingham and Manchester as transport hubs. (Old Oak Common to Euston could be dropped or delayed). Both Johnson and Farage have spoken out against Hs2, this is a mistake and will cost them in a GE. Condescendingly just putting a bit of investment into local infrastructure simply confirms outside London as mere disconnected periphery, a failure to deliver a train line will be seen as, and is, pathetic. Moving the political centre from London should be simple – replace FPTP, and the Lords, create an English Parliament near the centre of England (devolve much more, but maintain UK level international and defence policy – ideally outside London with Westminster mothballed/demolished) and move all senior civil servants out of London (I don’t think any of this is original, there are just vested interests). Farage might potentially have a bit more interest in shifting political power out of London, I suspect the Conservatives and Johnson have none (even Ms McVey’s blue collar conservatism was rejected in the first round). Other than the aforementioned rebalancing basics neither Mr Johnson nor Mr Farage have yet demonstrated an understanding of how macroeconomics has changed, nor an understanding of alternative tax systems. It has all been about tweaks to the current system that continue to transfer wealth and power (to be fair the other parties also seem to be lacking).

Have you noticed the two candidates are mentioning less often “WTO rules”; “Gatt 24” and “MFN”.

As I have explained before on this site, the decision by Canada not to roll-over CETA if the UK leaves the EU without a deal; is no surprise. Canada, like all the other countries that currently have big trade deals with the EU 28, is awaiting the outcome of what a future deal between the UK and the EU 27 looks like, before making a final decision.

Canada would say that at the moment because we have messed up the simple task of leaving.
With remainers in charge in number ten and in the cabinet.
Over three years wasted and Canada still cannot see what the outcome will be.
If we had left the EU, then Canada and the UK would soon after have a mutually beneficial arrangement for trade signed.

Option 4: The Eire/UK border is treated as it is now – a currency, excise, regulatory, legal, police, employment, people, state, and tax border. Just with the addition of customs, also handled remotely as the others already are.

Thanks to a majority of the Conservative Party MPs selecting Mrs. May and supporting her treacherous WA, Boris is now left with only one option and that is a WTO Brexit given the nastiness of the EU.

If Boris and our Parliament either revoke articel 50 or submit the country to a version of the WA the world will see that we are no longer a democratic country and we will have years of social and political unrest as unwanted EU’s laws, taxes, fines, budgets and policies (trade, environment, energy, immigration etc.) are imposed upon us.

I do not think ‘sampling’ Beethoven to create an unnecessary European Anthem is in anyway respectful to nation states. It is clear symbolism that one either agrees with or not. If the UK eventually leaves the EU and the EU completes its federalisation, then it is of course (more likely) appropriate to respect an EU nation’s anthem. I think it is disrespectful to be played at the moment.

I listened to Ms Widdecombe’s speech, in this case her argument and examples were coherent. I also agree with the SNP’s support for the Catalan MEPs and Catalonia. The UK Govt supported a Scotland independence referendum, fought it and won it. The Spanish Govt did not support a referendum, lost it, and have then acted in a way to cause fear to drive opinion away from independence – continuation of Catalonia as a colony of Spain. It will be very sad if the UK sacrifices Gibraltar to Spain as it sacrificed HK. Island and Kowloon to China.

Yes it is a question of respect, hence having a federal anthem whilst the nation’s still exist is disrespectful. I do not agree with some things that Ms Widdecombe has said, but listening to her 90 second speech it is coherent and the three examples are not used in the way that people are childishly trying to paint, this reflects really poorly on them.The

I think seeing Brexit as event vs process is an operational definition, the conceptual quality of Brexit is that it is a choice of what people view as better, whether this be decreasing democratic distance from decisions, reducing trade diversion, not biasing immigration to EU, being able to make appropriate sections on CRISPR etc. Of course some people prefer techocracy, protectionism, bias, unscientific traditionalism etc., what makes Brexit better is that people have chosen it as better, what makes it worse is ignoring the choice. (Of course operationally the choice can go awry e.g. Taking laws, staying in a CU, giving preference, aligning rules etc.)

An anthem is the preserve of a nation state.
The EU is not a nation state.
Nobody in the EU ever voted for it to be a nation state. Its ‘presidents’ have asserted that it is not a nation state.

The EU ‘anthem’ – which is just a tune with no words – is, like all other supranational symbols, neither recognized by nor included in the Treaty of Lisbon.

Schiller’s poem was of course not originally an ‘Ode to Joy’ – he was forced to change his original poetic theme and the poetry itself, which was an Ode to Freedom a concept that was anathema in the German state in which he lived – he was forced to flee westwards and to alter the words of his song from ‘Freiheit’ to ‘Freude’, from a conjuration of individual liberty to something more harmlessly platitudinous and bibulous.

I shall certainly turn my back if Beethoven’s tune is ever played with such symbolic EU-Imperial pretensions when I am present. I hope every other decent democrat will do likewise.

The UK Govt supported a Scotland independence referendum, fought it and won it”

You forget to mention that that was before the disastrous Brexit vote in England. Seeing that Scotland voted overwhelmingly remain the next referendum will be to leave the union after 300 years of colonial serfdom and join the EU as an independent nation.

With its own monarchy, which we will force on them.
With its own currency, which we will force on them.
Without the Barnett formula, which we will force on them.
With its own defence forces, which we will force on them.
With a hard border, which we will force on them.

The snag is Scotland would have to use the Euro.
The EU growth and stability pact rules would mean their current state spending would need to reduce greatly.
No more generous Barnet formula subsidies.
Let’s see how popular that scenario would be with Scottish voters once that sunk in.

When the oil revenue and huge whisky tax goes into Scottish coffers rather than London, they won’t need any Barnet formula.
And from experience I know that the EU is far more generous in supporting its regions than we ever were.

Margaret Howard, England and Scotland became the United Kingdom over 400 years ago (1603) when the Scottish King James VI took over the government of England, when government was the monarch. Serfdom had ceased already in both countries. Neither country was a colony of the other. If you cannot use words or history properly why do you bother?

Andy, Perhaps they should have thrown a milk-shake at Juncker instead? Or worn lurid yellow t-shirts with puerile slogans on them? Remember you call us “far-right”, “thick”, “racists”, “uneducated”, etc. You started it, we’re just returning the compliment. You are the people who demand we should vote again until we get the “right” answer. Maybe you should have a re-think.

And what would you have said if TBP MEPs had “respected” the EU state anthem? You would simply have found another formula to vent your anti-Brexit spleen. We are anti-EU precisely because we don’t respect the EU – it is a corrupt ideology – a protection racket – that is enslaving the people of Europe via their dim politicians. Again.

It was silly to turn their backs on the EU ‘anthem’. Although we should remember that when the EU constitution was supposedly abandoned and turned into the Lisbon treaty, there wasn’t supposed to be an EU ‘anthem’ at all. Sitting down and listening to it as a musical performance would have been more appropriate.

Let’s also pause for thought and reflect on the new low established in UK politics – or in any advanced democracy as far as I’m aware – by the LibDems adopting an official slogan with the vulgarity ‘bollocks’ in it, and turning up to the EU Parliament wearing shirts with that word on it. How can anyone vote for people who behave like that? – it would demean a 6th form debating society.

I love these Europhiles getting hot under the collar about people turning their back when the EU has sought to humiliate and in many ways destroy whole Nation states in their fanatical attempt to colonise the EU. They have done nothing for the unemployed youth in the southern European states who have no hope and no future, they turn their back (metaphorically) on the Catalans, some of whom are still in prison. They also turned their back when old women were dragged along the street by their hair and hit with rubber bullets. The evil of the EU knows no bounds. Yet you call out a few people who make a legitimate peaceful process. Absolutely typical.

Andy, at first I thought this action by the BP was very rude too. Very unBritish. Today I was reading Guido and there were several points made worth consideration,

* apparently ‘they tried to just sit out the anthem but were forced to their feet, they turned their back on that on purpose because we opted out of an EU National Anthem in the Lisbon Treaty’.

* there were very many MEPs from other countries who refused to stand for ‘Ode to Joy’, some sat defiant with their arms folded.

* Lamia said ‘let us recall how this all started: the Brussels Summit in December 2016 where EU leaders ostentatiously snubbed Theresa May, who was, for good or ill (well, entirely for ill) our Prime Minister’

I don’t think you can liken them to football hooligans either, bit extreme and over the top of you. Hooligan means ‘a violent young troublemaker’ what was violent about what they did? Wiki says ‘Hooliganism is disruptive or unlawful behavior such as rioting, bullying, and vandalism, usually in connection with crowds at sporting events’.

The BP MPs were respectful in their silent protest. Compare and contrast to the idiot Remainers sporting offensive slogans on yellow shirts (contrary to the parliaments dress code) like a bunch of football hooligans abroad.

Have you read the CV’s of the latest four fat cat appointments to the top eu jobs. Do you actually think that farcical organisation responsible for such shocking jobsworth procedures is worth any respect. I don’t.

Indeed Hunt’s view on fox hunting was just an attempt to garner some votes from the shires, his instant u turn did him no favours. His whole campaign has been a cynical attempt to deny views, strongly held only only months ago, in order to get elected.

We saw what happened with May as a Remainer, Hunt is merely a retread and we do not want a repeat of her absurd performance.

As for Boris, he voted for the WDA, either he believed in it or again a cynical act, this time hoping that May would go enabling him to take over. Rory Stewart said that he has been promising ‘soft’ and ‘hard’ brexits to different MPs to get their votes, did nothing to oppose the Chequers agreement but flounced out later, so I do not trust him either.

My money is on some cosmetic changes to the Backstop and the WDA spun like Cameron’s nonsense but in the main, us continuing to be trapped I hope I am wrong.

Nig1, I think Boris voting for Theresa May’s dWA was a mistake. We’re all human, we all make mistakes now and then. The point is that Boris has otherwise been consistently pro-Leave while Jeremy Hunt has been consistently Remain.

I think it would be remarkable if Johnson delivered an acceptable Brexit. I don’t think he has genuine Brexit principles, which is perhaps because he doesn’t seem to actually understand the reality of our relationship with the EU. He was also the original Theresa, a remainer posing as a leaver for his own personal advantage. So he lacks motive. He doesn’t seem to understand what the necessary means are to achieve a genuine Brexit. The one thing he does have is opportunity, and so he might accidentally preside over a genuine Brexit. But perhaps I’m wrong about Johnson and he is in fact a man of vision, integrity, fortitude and ability. He’ll have every chance to make me look silly.

Thatcher possessed all these qualities. Others have exhibited one or more. Blair undeniably had vision fortitude and ability. But his vision was awful. Had he been less able, he’d have done less damage. I don’t think Johnson has any of these qualities, though this would make him less problematic than May, who with only fortitude to sustain her, managed to do considerable damage.

For Hunt to bring up the question of fox hunting when all the mistakes and errors of judgement of Mrs May’s time at the Home Office and in No 10 are coming to the surface shows that he is no more than a replica of Theresa the Appeaser. He wants to be liked and that is a useless trait in any leader.

Boris has the vision and the brains coupled with the undoubted ability to ‘pick people’ and get this country back on track. He will get us free of the EU and then his team will concentrate on the many areas of government that have been neglected and ignored for the last three years

Having also voted for Boris immediately, I expect I will not be alone in thinking that he will need a first class Chancellor to tackle the nation’s crucial needs in the build up to October 31st and beyond. This surely cannot be one of the chameleon Brexiteers Javid, Truss or Hancock, despite media speculation of one kind or another in favour of each of them – especially not Hancock whose track record as Osborne’s right hand man and distributor of largesse to Kids’ Company should rule him out at once. No, what we need is a financial expert of many years’ standing who has shown his ability to communicate and explain what will work and what will not; who will face down the Treasury civil servants; and who has been a lifelong conviction Brexiteer. Now, who might have these attributes?

Hunt shows poor judgment and awareness just like May. He is also clearly in the pocket of big business givng them tax cuts and trying to stop Brexit. The very last thing we need is more big business influence in this country, it is pernicious and anti democratic. Not only should he not be leader he should not be an MP.

I think footwear should decide it. As far as I know no media have collected examples of the candidates choice of footwear. It was telling to see Mrs May choosing glamorous shoes. What do the guys wear? Patent, trainers, classic brogue, lace-up – brown, black, grey even red?

The Brexit Party is showing encouraging signs of being well-
organised and motivated, including their preparations for an election that
may come at any moment, their handling of their concerns over the
most recent by-election, and Ann Widdecombe’s passionate, un-
yielding speech in Strasbourg. The Tory election is, so far, a sideshow.

Reply No, not a sideshow. We are choosing the next PM who could delver a clean Brexit and needs to to restore some trust in Parliament

‘Could’ being the operative word. Will they? Not likely! The best thing the new PM can do is trigger a GE and give voters the opportunity to elect a new Parliament that can be trusted. That opportunity might not be taken, but that’s democracy for you.

The first problem for Boris will be dealing with the refuseniks in his own party(Gauke, Hammond, Grieve et al), who are publicly saying leaving on Oct 31 is impossible, or that any attempt to prorogue, would be unconstitutional and unthinkable. Somehow or other, these old guard, undemocratic, technocrats, who despise and disparage David Goodhart’s Somewheres, need to be uprooted from the party. They have not got the message of emerging, responsible populism, in these latter days. Their time has gone; now it’s our time.

This is true: Boris, thanks to the evil May, has been handed a poison chalice. There is nothing ‘unconstitutional’ about Prorogation and this is what ought to have been done earlier in the year. This nonsense needs to be brought to a close and the 2016 Referendum result honoured and respected.

Politicians and the chatteratti are talking in circles about the sugar tax, its effect on the poor in society and our chancellors logic that if there is a problem tax your way out of it. Wrong, the sugar enters the food chain at the manufacturers. They have always controlled it. Have we not sufficient nutricionists able to come to a concensus on desirable sugar levels. Havi g decided levels, dictate to industry how much or little they can add. Make it legally binding and over time the sugar junkies will loose their taste for it or reduce their lifespan by adding it by hand. Goverment should control what they can, tax as little as possible, but retain individuals freedom of choice however ill advised.

You’re advocating the manipulation of behaviour by means of legislation rather than taxation? Don’t you see that they are two sides of the same coin, that coin being called State Power? How about people producing what they choose, and others consuming it, or not, as they see fit? Why the need for State Power at all?

I too very much think Boris Johnson is the only sensible choice for Prime Minister.
Boris Johnson understands politics, Conservativism and the British people (quite apart from having an exceptional amount of flair that other British politicians with the possible exception of Nigel Farage don’t have) which Jeremy Hunt doesn’t seem to. While I do think even Jeremy Hunt would beat Corbyn (though he might well lose to Nigel Farage) as Corbyn is personally almost unelectable now, it is only Boris Johnson who is likely to win the election after next when Corbyn has been replaced by somebody with much the same disastrous views but much more personable and electable. So if we want to avoid a disastrous venture into Marxism (much like Venezuela) in several years time it is essential that Boris Johnson is made Prime Minister.
As for leaving the E.U., Hunt is just not credible as he is proclaiming both what a disaster it would be and that the exit date is flexible. In those circumstances it would be all too easy for the E.U. to fob him off with some useless promise to talk when the new Commission is in office after November, postpone leaving for another year during which time the Conservative Party could well be forced into a General Election and risk being virtually destroyed by The Brexit Party or otherwise stay in the E.U. long term. By contrast Boris Johnson intellectually understands the message of the E.U. elections and the grave threat not leaving on 31 October poses to the Conservative Party and it is on that rational basis that I trust him to leave.
My other objections to Jeremy Hunt are somewhat different to John Redwood’s. I am not particularly against him going to Parliament again over fox hunting (although in acknowledgement of its divisiveness that should probably be just after the next General Election). I think he might possibly be right about Corporation Tax because even if there is some tax loss in Corporation Tax if it succeeds in creating more business that could be overcome by less social security costs and more Income Tax/National Insurance receipts (perhaps John would give that more detailed consideration in a future blog!).However I am very critical of his expensive promises over extra Defence spending. Originally he was wanting to double Defence spending from 2% to 4% of G.D.P. but soon after getting into the last two that was downgraded to an extra 25% (thus somehow over £25billion or over 3p in the pound in terms of Income Tax vanished from his budgets which is disturbing and may explain why he is not too bothered about a one-off payment of £39billion to the E.U.) when the surface fleet is, I submit, not only too slow but also visible enough to only serve as floating missile targets in the context of modern warfare and therefore mostly a waste of money.
So though I concede that Jeremy Hunt is a slight improvement on Theresa May (at least he is instinctively Conservative unlike her), he is to put it kindly, a candidate from a much lower political league in terms of ability than Boris Johnson. What I would also say to Conservative Party members is that a general election is coming very soon whoever wins irrespective of what either candidate is now saying because neither the Conservatives’ parliamentary position nor the economic promises of either candidate are sustainable for very long.

I have already voted for Boris. Hunt’s main case is that he was at the NHS for longer than anyone else, though I am not sure what he achieved there. He may well be a competent manager but we need so much more than that if Brexit and our country are going to stand a chance, and Boris has shown that he may have at least some of what it will take.

W.Long…. He may have been there a ‘long’ time, but left chaos and disgruntled Drs. You are right to question just what did he achieve in an over-managed, over budgeted, over spending department. Did he actually manage? Sitting at the sharp end of political decision making is not necessarily managing. For me he comes across as bland, at least Boris is more charismatic and more likely to generate feel-good, which we will need as the country regenerates. It got to the point over the last 2 years of ‘her’ when I suspect most of the country groaned and became gloomy every time she was on the tv.

However where are we on battery manufacture, is anyone talking to Elon Musk. Second, and this is where government could play a role, to rationalise the re-charging challenge. Do we go for myriad plug- ins, or how about battery exchange stations, totally automated and capable of a change cycle in the same time as filling with liquid fuel.

Lawyers and tax grabbers will not have answers, so how about turning to technology. What I have suggested is much easier than the automated production of the vehicle itself.

If the Conservative Government led by Boris Johnson fails to exit cleanly on 31st October and then fails to successfully run Government it will be the fault of its MP’s.
In their choosing of the two candidates, neither stands out from the crowd, and I only choose Boris because he only has to sit on his hands, keep his mouth shut and we leave by default on 31st October.

If you had the sketch of a plan as to where we are going post 1st November I might take more notice John- but you don’t- none of you ERG types have- you say spend the 39billion at home but on what and where is this money coming from- is it in some escrow account on standby- waiting?

Boris is not going to renegotiate anything before 31st Oct mainly because the EU will not negotiate further. The talking is done- the WA is on the table and if not ratified the terms of it will be caught up with later- the most important thing to point out is that in this case there will be no ‘transition period’ to or from anywhere, so by 2nd Nov we will know that we are a truly 3rd country to them. Things will not be the same, so the question is John- just where are we going with all of this?

Someone asked me what I thought of Boris yesterday in front of a mixed group of folks and I replied whilst “He isn’t everybody’s cup of tea he seems to be the only one with a vision of where we are going” unlike the others.
For that reason alone Boris, held back by May and her remainers will bolt forward with the energy he had as London Mayor.
The larger than life Ford CEO Lee Iacocca who passed away recently used to hire folks smarter than himself but especially those who had been held back, because if you gave them a break you had to step aside he said as they’d bolt forward. I am sure Boris would succeed where May has failed on Brexit and many more fronts.

I could not support Mr Hunt as PM for a simple reason, he believes more government (the EU) increases our prosperity.

All the evidence from history consistently shows it does not, at the company I work at what little government intertaction we have is extra unpaid work.

Now we get to see if Boris can deliver brexit. He has a brexit party ready to take over and an EU who publically have stated they won’t negotiate. A WTO brexit at the end of October is almost a certainty.

But it is what he does after that I am concerned about, if he pins his hopes on more negotiations with the EU they will break him. If instead he goes to countrys around the world getting trade deals he will be holding the EU feet to the fire.

There are a depressingly large number of MPs who wish to bring down a brexit government, hopefully these people who have no wish to govern the UK can get out of the job. However, they are welcome to join ChangeUK, their antics make them very unlikely to be reelected. If a coup is pulled in November I have no fears Britain will not return a pro-brexit government. Mrs Widdecombe speaks for us all.

The Times is reporting that Johnson has met Javid and Gove “secretly”, and that Gove is likely to retain his position as Environment Secretary. To me that is bad news as he is a zealous Climate Change Act follower. Worse still he supported Theresa May and her WA. He is not the sort of person to inspire confidence amongst Brexiteers and this retention of G’s services (if it is true) does not show that Boris means real change. Boris should have a new Cabinet untainted by what went on before, and there is plenty of talent outside the current Cabinet to do that.

The Conservatives have been the party of big business for too long now. Small businesses have been hammered by endless legislation, both onerous (excessive red tape) and expensive (in tax terms).

Cuts in corporation tax have no effect on small incorporated businesses that pay their profits to their owners, since they end up paying tax at individual rates, one way or another so, as you say, these CT tax cuts only benefit big businesses.

It really is time MPs realised that HMRC know very little about the real world. As long as their mandate is to collect as much tax as possible, they will behave in a manner that is not good for society as a whole.

IR35 needs to go. Expecting people who fall inside an arbitrary line to pay both employers and employees NI is ludicrous. The best way to do this would be to remove employer’s NI. This is an archaic tax on employing British BASED workers – is it any wonder we see so much outsourcing in these days of the ‘global village’ economy? The average Brit is disadvantaged over workers in other countries by costing 14% more to employ before they even start.

And why is the status known as ’employed’ (PAYE) taxed so much more heavily than other ways of working?

When we talk about ‘the rich’, why do we allow the socialists to bring the discussion back to INCOME and talk about taxing high-earners, when the debate should be about WEALTH. Why tax people who earn their money and leave alone those who don’t work/contribute?

Basic common sense and political savvy should tell the Conservative MPs that only a candidate who is determined to honour the will of the people and finally get us out of the EU, before November 1st, can bail out the Party. Furthermore, if that Leader puts Britain and its people first, every time, he will just manage to save the Conservatives from extinction in 2022.
The time for a new political model in Britain is long due.

Hunt would be OK as a common-or-garden PM under normal circumstances, but these are not normal circumstances. The times call for a risk-taker, and Hunt is a Remainer through and through, cautious to the core, just like Theresa May. In extraordinary times, a “safe pair of hands” is not safe.

Foxes kill and eat rabbits and just wound the rest in sly cunning fun.
Bravo the farming community in stopping the slaughter of rabbits which they need so badly for the pot to feed their families despite rabbits devouring their crops to desert conditions. What would the country do without the wisdom and rare courage of our farmers. The world looks on with shock and awe poor foxy-woksies.

rabbit rabbit ….do you really think foxes reduce the rabbit population? They live in towns and raid bins etc. Farmers shoot rabbits and do not badly need them for the pot, more feed them to their ferrets.

Off you go then 31st Oct with no deal. But without the WA there will be no further discussion, nor will there be a transition period so then with UK driving licences will be useless on the continent and EU licenses useless in UK, another reason the Calais Dover trade will shut down..can’t see it any other way, it means goods intended for export will have to be containerised and sent through Felixstowe for instance

Not so mancunius, the IDP is only good if accompanied by a valid UK driving licence, but after 31st Oct the UK driving license, which is really an EU licence, will no longer be valid for use in EU countries.

mancunius- Let me quote from an Irish government notice in yesterdays newspapers-

if you hold a UK (including Northern Ireland) driving licence and are a resident of Ireland, it is important that you understand that if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, your licence will no longer be valid to drive in Ireland. For that reason you must take steps now to exchange your UK licence for an Irish one.

and it goes on, do not wait etc etc

So in order for an IDP to be valid it must be accompanied with a valid country’s driving licence, it seems. After 31st Oct, UK citizens driving licences won’t be valid for driving in EU countries. One of the criteria i expect being the complication for vehicle insurance- on the other hand I can see similar problems arising over the UK/EU passport being accepted in some EU countries and not in others.

I notice that at every point IDS and Boris state “when we leave the EU on October 31st.” I presume this is deliberate, and I presume it comes from Crosby? I find this interesting. I guess that to state this constantly in all broadcast platforms would suggest a confidence and a plan about which we know nothing. I am rather relieved we know nothing about it, because it would suggest we are keeping our powder dry. Once remainers get a whiff of it they will start to plan too.

As the archtraitor “Sir” John Major has now come out for Jeremy Hunt that should settle any lingering doubts among patriotic Tory party members.

Meanwhile Sky and the BBC continue their campaigns against Boris Johnson, with the BBC going on about the slogan on the bus without bothering to say that judges have just said it was acceptable to claim that our gross contribution was £350 million a week:

“The alleged offence set out in the Application for Summons is that the Claimant “repeatedly made and endorsed false and misleading statements concerning the cost of the United Kingdom’s membership of the European Union”. It appears that if the Claimant had said/endorsed a figure of £350m per week gross, or £250m per week net, there would have been no complaint.”

Another very good reason for leaving the EU has been highlighted today (remainers please note).
Members of a gang behind the biggest modern-day slavery network ever exposed in the UK have been jailed.
Police believe more than 400 victims were put to work in the West Midlands by the organised crime gang.
They tricked vulnerable people from Poland into England with the promise of work and a better life.

This would not have been possible without freedom of movement and a badly run Home Office

No mention of Hunt’s foreign policy, then? How is one an independent nation if one does not have an independent foreign policy? Prior to Hunt engaging in piracy in the Med, he previously stated that if the US decided to attack Iran, then we would hang on to their shirt tails. In other words he is prepared to pre-legitimise actions of a foreign power knowing full-well that its foreign policy is in the hands of people who are both sectionable and without even a primary loyalty to that foreign power thereby being concerned for a beneficial outcome for it.
The man is dangerously stupid.

Surprised to hear Farage promoting the idea of a switch to PR voting for general elections. Just tactically the BP are projected to be big beneficiaries of FPTP with current polling, but beyond that CHANGING THE VOTING SYSTEM WAS DEFEATED IN A REFERENDUM NIGEL.

I’ve just dropped this letter to the local newspaper I share with Theresa May, including an indirect reference to what may well be her true geopolitical preference.

“Obviously it was just a coincidence that Hugh Lansley’s opinion piece, entitled:

“Price of leaving EU is too high”

was published on July 4, the day when Americans celebrate their Declaration of Independence.

There were colonialists who objected to separation from the mother country, or who thought the price of independence would be too high; but many were prepared to fight and die for it, in a way that we are not being expected to fight and die to leave the EU.

Supporters of the EU tend to rehearse the same old half-baked arguments against withdrawal, without bothering to tell us what they would expect to happen if instead we decided to stay in.

The EEC/EC/EU project has always been directed towards establishing a pan-European federation, as pointed out in a letter entitled:

“Explicit goal of EU is an ever closer union”

published in the Advertiser on December 20 2018.

And that is very clearly still the case now, with the politician nominated to become the new President of the EU Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, having stated in 2011:

“My aim is the United States of Europe – modelled on federal states like Switzerland, Germany or the U.S.”

Well, in my view that is a respectable political aim, honestly expressed, but it is not one that is shared by the great majority of Britons.

An aim secretly shared by most of the top politicians in the UK, arguably, including Prime Ministers from Harold Macmillan six decades ago through to the present day, but supported by only a small minority of the electorate.”

Have you read the CV’s of the latest four fat cat appointments to the top eu jobs. Do you actually think that farcical organisation responsible for such shocking jobsworth procedures is worth any respect. I don’t.

Pominoz
The simplesite web address you posted 5.14am 5 July which was said to track progress in the English Democrats Brexit court proceedings does not seem to work. You posted stynesrobert.simplesite.com/442061665 is this correct?

As you know, the spending pledges of both candidates don’t hold water. And it’s the same with your ideas of cutting taxes and increasing public spending. You Brexiteers haven’t a clue what you’re going to be faced with in a No deal scenario. You just make it up as you go along…but, finally, when Johnson does become PM, he and the rest of you will at last be held accountable for the dishonest and dire project that is Brexit.

About John Redwood

John Redwood won a free place at Kent College, Canterbury, and graduated from Magdalen College Oxford. He is a Distinguished fellow of All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has set up an investment management business, was both executive and non executive chairman of a quoted industrial PLC, and chaired a manufacturing company with factories in Birmingham, Chicago, India and China. He is the MP for Wokingham, first elected in 1987.